In the next of our series of blogs highlighting the project’s briefing papers, Peter Dwyer and Lisa Scullion examine attitudes to migration and conditionality in the UK.

Migration, it seems, is never far from the minds of politicians and the public alike. Only last week the government minister Michael Fallon spoke of certain towns being “under siege, [with] large numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits”. Although he has since apologised for his remarks, and accepted he should have used less emotive language, the rights and responsibilities of migrants who enter the UK to live and work and the impact that migration may have remain subject to contentious debate.

Rhetorically at least, the current UK government, in line with its New Labour predecessors, is keen to emphasise its ability to control immigration into the UK. In the past two decades UK immigration and asylum policy has strengthened the long-established link between immigration status and the widely divergent rights to residence, work and welfare available to different migrants. The rights of Third Country National migrants to enter the UK from countries beyond Europe are now subject to strict rules and quotas. More recently the Coalition government has expressed growing concerns about European Economic Area (EEA) migrants who have exercised their rights to free movement and entered the UK in significant numbers as the EU has expanded since 2004. Recent policy initiatives seek to restrict such migrants’ access to benefits. These include a ‘stronger and more robust’ application of the Habitual Residence Test and amended regulations which introduce a ‘Genuine Prospect of Work Test’. This aims to curtail unemployed EEA migrants’ right to claim Jobseekers’ Allowance to a maximum period of six months unless they can provide ‘compelling evidence’ that they have a genuine prospect of finding future employment.

Against this kind of policy backdrop our briefing paper on Conditionality and Migrants authored by Peter Dwyer and Lisa Scullion looks at how immigration and welfare policy come together in complex ways to structure and constrain migrants’ rights to residence, work and welfare in the UK. Those who advocate further restrictions on entitlement and increased conditionality for migrants often cite the need to retain national sovereignty over immigration policy in order to prevent ‘benefit tourism’ by migrants looking to abuse welfare systems. Proponents of such arguments view migrants as an added burden on increasingly stretched welfare budgets. Counter arguments have been made by others who state that the long term contributions of migrants routinely outweigh their costs to the welfare system. However, empirical evidence to settle the argument one way or another remains hotly disputed by those on opposing sides.

Why do debates about the legitimacy of migrants’ claims to collective welfare benefits and services matter? Well, they matter because current policy direction and the tone of the debate problematises the presence of new migrants and, arguably, by association the rights and presence of many Black and Minority Ethnic communities whose members are established UK citizens. Welfare conditionality in a broad sense (i.e. the ways in eligibility criteria linked to a specific state-assigned immigration status set out specific individual rights to reside, work and access welfare benefits and services) severely constrains many migrants’ ability to contribute to UK society through paid work and/or to call upon welfare rights to meet basic human needs as situations change. More narrowly, the shift towards a welfare state centred on behavioural conditionality, in which certain basic, publicly provided, welfare entitlements become dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet particular compulsory duties or patterns of responsible behaviour, is also relevant. The limited evidence available suggests that discriminatory and racialised attitudes may be significant in influencing both higher levels of sanction and lower quality of support among migrants (and Black and Minority Ethnic citizens more generally). Moving forward we intend to explore the ways in which international migration and ethnicity may mediate the effects of conditionality and how sanctions and support play out in migrants’ lives as this remains an under-researched area.

Conference

Latest Comments

You also have an exact and clear idea of how all this affects people who are actually caught up in it. Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for these policies and decisions have never had to deal with it so there is no understanding and no empathy. We are losing our humanity in today's society.

Why would people then bother to make a home and spend money on it? We have to get away from this mindset that has now taken hold that Social Housing.....hate that term, is just temporary to suit your immediate needs. People should not have to up sticks all the time because a child gets older etc. When the old system was in place ie older people with larger homes than they needed they were offered incentives to downsize. In the 90's more Older peoples accommodation was built. Bungalows, Sheltered Housing etc. People were given help with removal costs. This has all changed. To make someone move from a home they have been in for years is cruel if it is not voluntary. I have been in my home since it was built. My daughter moved out as she should when grown up to make her own home. So after 23 years with roots well and truly down, should I be made to move? I have my granddaughter to stay. My daughter's room is now for her and was also an office when I worked from home. I could not fit my home into a small 1 bedroom flat. I do not want people living above me. This idea that if you live in Social Housing it is just accommodation but if you own it is your home is totally wrong. My parents moved willingly into Sheltered Housing but the change affected them drastically. My dad became stressed and ill and died a year later and my mother never settled and died a few years later. This was because they uprooted themselves and left their home and all the memories and familiar surroundings. Unfortunately like most issues these days, the humanity is being taken out of it.

Great resources on linking welfare sanction and conditionally and key social policy considerations with human rights principles (including dignity, non-discrimination). These considerations have a huge impact in narratives around poverty and vulnerability, and should be closely looked at by policy decision-makers and street-level bureaucrats.

Ok. I don’t agree with the bedroom tax but I do feel it would be a better option if housing rules were changed. For example why do they wait until kids are over 10 until giving families two bedrooms?
Then I also think housing should be fit for purpose so I believe when they move someone from a one bedroom to a 2 or 3 it should be with the understanding only until the children grow up and leave home then they should have their Tennancy moved back to something more suitable again like a one bedroom.

A fine well written and clear example of what is broken in our welfare system.
They are asking for submission for the next select committee meeting on welfare and I would submit this post if it were my choice.
It is a vicious cycle for some who have no chance of finding work however hard they might try. It is the employers who ultimately make the decision if employees are fit and ready to work, not the DWP.
Having a budget of £2 per day for food , job searching activities, keeping your appearance and strength up, and having to jump through hoops and tick boxes on all those strength zapping, soul destroying schemes courses and programs that do nothing but heap yet even more pressure and stress.
The affects of stress on both mental and physical health are well documented and nothing can be more stressful than not knowing week in, week out, that your hand to mouth existence is constantly at risk.
Sanctions are death sentences for some, no getting away from that fact, those charged with administrating the regime should hang their heads in shame, it is those who should make the stand to bring about change.
Or do they deceive themselves into believing long time shirker Jim who they sanctioned last month and who has not been seen again at the local JCP, Is now enjoying the fruits of his labor thanks to the Works Coaches helpful push they so desperately needed.
So clearly sanctions work and a good done job done by me, high five everyone.